BACHAN KISKU v. THE DISTRICT JUDGE CUM CHAIRMAN, CUTTACK
WP(C)/13330/2022 · 2025-07-09
Dixit K S, M S Sahoo
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 34366 (ORI) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 34366 (ORI) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.13330 of 2022
Bachan Kisku …. Petitioner Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus- The District Judge-cum- Chairman, Cuttack and others …. Opp. Parties
Mr. S.B Panda, AGA for O.Ps.1 & 2 Mr. Umakanta Mishra, Advocate for O.P. Nos.3 to 22
CORAM:
JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO
ORDER
09.07.2025
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. An unsuccessful candidate in the public examination is grieving before the Writ Court contending that two of his answers have been left unevaluated and as a consequence, he was graded below than what he was otherwise entitled to. Had he been awarded marks for the said two answers, he would have figured above the selected candidates and therefore eventually would have got admission.
3. Mr. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. Mishra,
learned counsel representing for the successful candidates oppose the petition contending that whatever is written after the specified period of examination, is liable to be ignored, inasmuch as the candidature has to be assessed on the performance done in a time bound way. We agree with this.
Order No.
05.
4. The vehement submission of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that he had in fact written the two answers within the specified period and therefore his client is entitled to have the evaluation. This is difficult to countenance. It hardly needs to be stated that the examination is conducted by employing the computer services and it is not possible to allege any mala fide or ill-will to such examinations or the computer instruments/ software that are employed for examinations. No material particulars are forthcoming from the pleadings in this regard.
5. We are also not impressed by the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner as to how and why his client could be singled out for unfair treatment.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge Madhusmita